Saturday 20 May 2017

Martin Luther Hated the Righteousness of God


Catholics don't believe Man is saved through Faith alone. 

Catholics believe that Faith has to be joined with Good Works.
Martin Luther Hated the Righteousness of God (But Loved Poo)


"One ought to fast, watch, and labor to the extent that such activities are needed to harness the body’s desires and longings; however, those who presume that they are justified by works pay no attention to the need for self-discipline but see the works themselves as the way to righteousness. They believe that if they do a great number of impressive works all will be well and righteousness will be the result. Sometimes this is pursued with such zeal that they become mentally unstable and their bodies are sapped of all strength. Such disastrous consequences demonstrate that the belief that we are justified and saved by works without faith is extremely foolish."

"All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless...For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing."

"I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want "free-will" to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground ; but because even were there no dangers. I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success.¦ But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God.

- Martin Luther





So what [else] did Luther actually say? As an example, in 1542, Luther is reported to have described his depression as such: “I am ripe shit, so is the world a great wide asshole; eventually we will part.”

To say he was preoccupied would be putting it mildly. In 1531, in discussing an illustrative conversation he had with the Devil (which took place on a toilet), Luther said, “I am cleansing my bowels and worshipping God Almighty; You deserve what descends and God what ascends.”

So great was his love for pooing that he claimed one of his most significant revelations came while he was on the pot. In attempting to understand Romans 1:17, the realization that salvation came through faith rather than through his effort struck him, and as he later claimed, “Here I felt that I was altogether born again, and had entered Paradise itself through open gates.”

In his defense, the idea of the Devil loitering in toilets and it being his “playground,” was a common one. So, it makes a weird sort of sense that Luther would, as he put it, “chase him [Satan] away with a fart,” or write to him, “Dear Devil . . . I have shat in my pants and breeches; hang them on your neck and wipe your mouth with them.”

More than just bizarre diary entries, it has been argued that the Devil in these writings often served as a stand-in for many of Luther’s enemies, and that Luther’s followers were aware of this and applauded him for his bravery and strength.

Not everyone was impressed with Luther’s vulgarity, however. The English Catholic, Thomas More (1478-1535) (Henry VIII had his head cut off on July 6), called Luther a “buffoon . . . [who will] carry nothing in his mouth other than cesspools, sewers, latrines, shit and dung . . . .”

But Luther was undeterred and toward the end of his life, penned what was essentially an open letter to Pope Paul III in 1545 called Against the Papacy in Rome Founded by the Devil, in which Luther pulled out all the stops. Saving some of his best for last, Luther described the practice of indulgences as “an utter shitting,” and went on to claim that the “dearest little ass-pope” not only worshiped Satan, but “also lick[ed his] behind.”[8] (Licking someone’s butt at this time being somewhat equivalent to the modern expression “kiss-ass.”) He also said the Pope farted so loudly and powerfully, that “it is a wonder that it did not tear his hole and belly apart.”



First to understand the background to the story that Luther recalls,  Luther used to hate Romans 1:17. He struggled with this verse in particular, and the phrase 'God's righteousness' in particular, because he always read it in the sense which it was preached by the Catholic theologians at the time. At that time this verse was understood as the "formal or active righteousness" with which "God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner." In other words, Luther while believing in God and having some faith in Christ struggled with Romans 1:17 before his 'confidence burst' and his faith began to posses him more violently. This is why Romans 1:17 is brought up in his recollections but actually plays little part in his explaining his actual beliefs later on. This he did, regarding justification by faith, most fully in his lectures on Galatians, although Romans as a whole still held an important place as well.

His experience or turning point in breaking through on his understanding of Romans 1:17 is referred to as his 'Tower Experience' because  it occurred in the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg (later Luther’s home) at an undetermined date between 1508 and 1518.

Luther, before overcoming his doubts about Romans 1:17, used to think 'God's  righteousness' in the gospel 'was revealed', not in giving perfect righteousness freely to sinners forever apart from the fact they were sinners, but in punishing sinners and rewarding the righteous.  Luther, originally as a monk, viewed the gospel as an extension of the law, not a way to find freedom from its curse. Only later did he discover that a person is saved by faith, without works of the law entering into the equation.  He always saw that faith produced many works, but not allowing those works to take part in the subject of justification, where we 'passively receive' righteousness as a gift, apart from our own merit, was something he learned later on. I think the Romans 1:17 'tower experience' that he had was probably during his lectures on Romans which began in the year 1516.

Before this experience He says he had faith but it was not clear yet:

For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about.82 Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.” (Luther's Works, Volume 54, P442).

 In 1545, he describes his own experience at greater length. He seems to take a longer view if it, like a growing faith and struggle that begins by referring to his days as a monk, his weak faith in his earlier days as a Biblical Professor and finally his overwhelming sense of what Romans 1:17 really meant. He recalled these experiences  when describing the events that occurred in the year 1519 when he got into trouble with the Pope. To understand at what point in his thinking 1519 occurs it is helpful to know that Luther first lectured on Romans at around the year 1516, he also lectured a preliminary version of Galatians and Hebrews shortly after this time. However, he did not lecture on Galatians, formally, in the format in which they were published, until around 1531. It took around 16 years for his faith to really explode in the form of Galatians, long after he had kicked the hornets nest in Rome.

In fact, this gripping realization of justification by faith made him revisit his old lectures and begin to rewrite them as early as 1519. It is just before this time that he made his breakthrough in the 'tower experience'. Removing his misunderstanding of that verse, his faith seems to have broke into a full confidence and the verse that used to trouble him became an anchor that symbolized his overwhelming conviction that began slowly years before and grew more and more years later. Here we find he began to revise his work on the Psalms in 1519 and his breakthrough over his doubts about Romans Chapter 1:17 that had 'stood in his way' until this point.

Meanwhile, I had already during that year returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart,but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. 

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

He continues to explain the effects of his experience about Romans 1:17 and how he later found additional support through Augustine. He  already had his doctorate in theology in October 19, 1512 and may seem strange that he did not encounter Augustine's work on the subject until years later, but it is a very specific one which Luther mentions, called 'The Spirit and the Letter.' 

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught. Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret the Psalter. And the work would have grown into a large commentary, if I had not again been compelled to leave the work begun, because Emperor Charles V in the following year convened the diet at Worms.49. (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

The truth is although Romans was the place where he made his initial breakthrough it was not the place where his faith finally rested on. For this we must turn to Galatians.  In fact Luther hardly has any comments at all under Chapter 1:7 in his works on Romans, but in every verse of Galatians, Luther uses as one more opportunity to pound and pound away at the doctrine that changed his life forever. No bible commentary on any book in the Bible since can pretend in any way to have had the same impact on the world.

As a result of the revolutionary changes in Luther and his dramatic growing faith is there is a problem with Luther's Works in that he had to re-write many things and where the need was not urgent he seems to have left them as they were.  Romans is a little thin on doctrine compared to Galatians, as he wrote it years before, it is also was not needing much revision, so Luther probably found most of it still acceptable to him even under his enlarged views years later. 

His commentary on Galatians was when he was crystal clear in 1531 and he does not seem to have had enough time to fully rewrite everything before to measure up to his final stage of assurance and knowledge.  Therefore regarding the timing of his understanding of the doctrine that in many ways resulted in the Protestant church, I would say that his faith was crystallized around 1517 with Romans and from there it grew until it exploded with Galatians in 1531.  He seems to have hung his faith not on Romans at all by this point. Galatians was his eventual favorite work and the essential Luther.

For anyone interested in reading Luther, He wrote his works on Genesis after Galatians so they are not in any need up of updating at all and are a good place to start after Galatians. Some of his earlier works however must be viewed and even possibly corrected by comparing them to Galatians. 

After all his years Luther clearly favored his writing on Galatians above all else. I am sure he would have instantly agreed to the burning of all his books if he might keep his work on Galatians. It is here where you find Luther's views in the doctrine of salvation by faith, apart from works. One can't understand Luther at all without reading it. Anyone who has read it will understand why. I challenge anyone interested in Luther to read his work on Galatians in order to begin to understand him.

Luther described his relation to the epistle in more vivid terms. “The Epistle to the Galatians,” he once said at table, “is my epistle, to which I am betrothed. It is my Katie von Bora.”  (Luther's Works, Volume 26, Introduction)

Friday 19 May 2017

Defeat the Brute Within - Stan Ezrol and Harley Schlanger


September 2nd, 2001 Panel 5 of the ICLC Schiller Instititute conference. 

Jeff Steinberg chaired the panel on problem of the environmentalist and religious fundamentalist stupidity that became endemic from the 1960's counter-culture. 

Ezrol details the role played by a small group of pro-confederate/KKK/Nazi/fascist screwballs called the Nashville Agrarians and their destructive role in shaping the economic, political, and cultural direction of the United States into acceptance of complete morons like George Bush/Al Gore as the leading candidates for example. 

Taking up that theme, Schlanger hits at the cultural sewer that your average shmuck wallows in and will defend to the bitter end even though it was designed to enslave you. 

Taking up examples from the works of Friedrich Schiller and Shakespeare, he describes what a culture designed to uplift the moral and mental capabilities of the average person does with the help of actor Robert Beltran.

Sunday 14 May 2017

From Ludlow to Lud's Hill



BUCKINGHAM

You cloudy princes and heart-sorrowing peers,
That bear this mutual heavy load of moan,
Now cheer each other in each other's love
Though we have spent our harvest of this king,
We are to reap the harvest of his son.
The broken rancour of your high-swoln hearts,
But lately splinter'd, knit, and join'd together,
Must gently be preserved, cherish'd, and kept:
Me seemeth good, that, with some little train,
Forthwith from Ludlow the young prince be fetch'd
Hither to London, to be crown'd our king.
RIVERS
Why with some little train, my Lord of Buckingham?
BUCKINGHAM
Marry, my lord, lest, by a multitude,
The new-heal'd wound of malice should break out,
Which would be so much the more dangerous
By how much the estate is green and yet ungovern'd:
Where every horse bears his commanding rein,
And may direct his course as please himself,
As well the fear of harm, as harm apparent,
In my opinion, ought to be prevented.
GLOUCESTER
I hope the king made peace with all of us
And the compact is firm and true in me.
RIVERS
And so in me; and so, I think, in all:
Yet, since it is but green, it should be put
To no apparent likelihood of breach,
Which haply by much company might be urged:
Therefore I say with noble Buckingham,
That it is meet so few should fetch the prince.
HASTINGS
And so say I.
GLOUCESTER
Then be it so; and go we to determine
Who they shall be that straight shall post to Ludlow.
Madam, and you, my mother, will you go
To give your censures in this weighty business?
QUEEN ELIZABETH DUCHESS OF YORK
With all our harts.
Exeunt all but BUCKINGHAM and GLOUCESTER
BUCKINGHAM
My lord, whoever journeys to the Prince,
For God's sake, let not us two be behind;
For, by the way, I'll sort occasion,
As index to the story we late talk'd of,
To part the queen's proud kindred from the king.
GLOUCESTER
My other self, my counsel's consistory,
My oracle, my prophet! My dear cousin,
I, like a child, will go by thy direction.
Towards Ludlow then, for we'll not stay behind.

Exeunt

SCENE III. London. A street.



Enter two Citizens meeting
First Citizen
Neighbour, well met: whither away so fast?
Second Citizen
I promise you, I scarcely know myself:
Hear you the news abroad?
First Citizen
Ay, that the king is dead.
Second Citizen
Bad news, by'r lady; seldom comes the better:
I fear, I fear 'twill prove a troublous world.
Enter another Citizen
Third Citizen
Neighbours, God speed!
First Citizen
Give you good morrow, sir.
Third Citizen
Doth this news hold of good King Edward's death?
Second Citizen
Ay, sir, it is too true; God help the while!
Third Citizen
Then, masters, look to see a troublous world.
First Citizen
No, no; by God's good grace his son shall reign.
Third Citizen
Woe to the land that's govern'd by a child!
Second Citizen
In him there is a hope of government,
That in his nonage council under him,
And in his full and ripen'd years himself,
No doubt, shall then and till then govern well.
First Citizen
So stood the state when Henry the Sixth
Was crown'd in Paris but at nine months old.
Third Citizen
Stood the state so? No, no, good friends, God wot;
For then this land was famously enrich'd
With politic grave counsel; then the king
Had virtuous uncles to protect his grace.
First Citizen
Why, so hath this, both by the father and mother.
Third Citizen
Better it were they all came by the father,
Or by the father there were none at all;
For emulation now, who shall be nearest,
Will touch us all too near, if God prevent not.
O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester!
And the queen's sons and brothers haught and proud:
And were they to be ruled, and not to rule,
This sickly land might solace as before.
First Citizen
Come, come, we fear the worst; all shall be well.
Third Citizen
When clouds appear, wise men put on their cloaks;
When great leaves fall, the winter is at hand;
When the sun sets, who doth not look for night?
Untimely storms make men expect a dearth.
All may be well; but, if God sort it so,
'Tis more than we deserve, or I expect.
Second Citizen
Truly, the souls of men are full of dread:
Ye cannot reason almost with a man
That looks not heavily and full of fear.
Third Citizen
Before the times of change, still is it so:
By a divine instinct men's minds mistrust
Ensuing dangers; as by proof, we see
The waters swell before a boisterous storm.
But leave it all to God. whither away?
Second Citizen
Marry, we were sent for to the justices.
Third Citizen
And so was I: I'll bear you company.
Exeunt

SCENE IV. London. The palace.



Enter the ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, young YORK, QUEEN ELIZABETH, and the DUCHESS OF YORK
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Last night, I hear, they lay at Northampton;
At Stony-Stratford will they be to-night:
To-morrow, or next day, they will be here.
DUCHESS OF YORK
I long with all my heart to see the prince:
I hope he is much grown since last I saw him.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
But I hear, no; they say my son of York
Hath almost overta'en him in his growth.
YORK
Ay, mother; but I would not have it so.
DUCHESS OF YORK
Why, my young cousin, it is good to grow.
YORK
Grandam, one night, as we did sit at supper,
My uncle Rivers talk'd how I did grow
More than my brother: 'Ay,' quoth my uncle
Gloucester,
'Small herbs have grace, great weeds do grow apace:'
And since, methinks, I would not grow so fast,
Because sweet flowers are slow and weeds make haste.
DUCHESS OF YORK
Good faith, good faith, the saying did not hold
In him that did object the same to thee;
He was the wretched'st thing when he was young,
So long a-growing and so leisurely,
That, if this rule were true, he should be gracious.
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Why, madam, so, no doubt, he is.
DUCHESS OF YORK
I hope he is; but yet let mothers doubt.
YORK
Now, by my troth, if I had been remember'd,
I could have given my uncle's grace a flout,
To touch his growth nearer than he touch'd mine.
DUCHESS OF YORK
How, my pretty York? I pray thee, let me hear it.
YORK
Marry, they say my uncle grew so fast
That he could gnaw a crust at two hours old
'Twas full two years ere I could get a tooth.
Grandam, this would have been a biting jest.
DUCHESS OF YORK
I pray thee, pretty York, who told thee this?
YORK
Grandam, his nurse.
DUCHESS OF YORK
His nurse! why, she was dead ere thou wert born.
YORK
If 'twere not she, I cannot tell who told me.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
A parlous boy: go to, you are too shrewd.
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Good madam, be not angry with the child.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Pitchers have ears.
Enter a Messenger
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Here comes a messenger. What news?
Messenger
Such news, my lord, as grieves me to unfold.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
How fares the prince?
Messenger
Well, madam, and in health.
DUCHESS OF YORK
What is thy news then?
Messenger
Lord Rivers and Lord Grey are sent to Pomfret,
With them Sir Thomas Vaughan, prisoners.
DUCHESS OF YORK
Who hath committed them?
Messenger
The mighty dukes
Gloucester and Buckingham.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
For what offence?
Messenger
The sum of all I can, I have disclosed;
Why or for what these nobles were committed
Is all unknown to me, my gracious lady.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Ay me, I see the downfall of our house!
The tiger now hath seized the gentle hind;
Insulting tyranny begins to jet
Upon the innocent and aweless throne:
Welcome, destruction, death, and massacre!
I see, as in a map, the end of all.
DUCHESS OF YORK
Accursed and unquiet wrangling days,
How many of you have mine eyes beheld!
My husband lost his life to get the crown;
And often up and down my sons were toss'd,
For me to joy and weep their gain and loss:
And being seated, and domestic broils
Clean over-blown, themselves, the conquerors.
Make war upon themselves; blood against blood,
Self against self: O, preposterous
And frantic outrage, end thy damned spleen;
Or let me die, to look on death no more!
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Come, come, my boy; we will to sanctuary.
Madam, farewell.
DUCHESS OF YORK
I'll go along with you.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
You have no cause.
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
My gracious lady, go;
And thither bear your treasure and your goods.
For my part, I'll resign unto your grace
The seal I keep: and so betide to me
As well I tender you and all of yours!
Come, I'll conduct you to the sanctuary.
Exeunt


ACT III

SCENE I. London. A street.



The trumpets sound. Enter the young PRINCE EDWARD, GLOUCESTER, BUCKINGHAM, CARDINAL, CATESBY, and others
BUCKINGHAM
Welcome, sweet prince, to London, to your chamber.
GLOUCESTER
Welcome, dear cousin, my thoughts' sovereign
The weary way hath made you melancholy.
PRINCE EDWARD
No, uncle; but our crosses on the way
Have made it tedious, wearisome, and heavy
I want more uncles here to welcome me.
GLOUCESTER
Sweet prince, the untainted virtue of your years
Hath not yet dived into the world's deceit
Nor more can you distinguish of a man
Than of his outward show; which, God he knows,
Seldom or never jumpeth with the heart.
Those uncles which you want were dangerous;
Your grace attended to their sugar'd words,
But look'd not on the poison of their hearts :
God keep you from them, and from such false friends!
PRINCE EDWARD
God keep me from false friends! but they were none.
GLOUCESTER
My lord, the mayor of London comes to greet you.
Enter the Lord Mayor and his train
Lord Mayor
God bless your grace with health and happy days!
PRINCE EDWARD
I thank you, good my lord; and thank you all.
I thought my mother, and my brother York,
Would long ere this have met us on the way
Fie, what a slug is Hastings, that he comes not
To tell us whether they will come or no!
Enter HASTINGS
BUCKINGHAM
And, in good time, here comes the sweating lord.
PRINCE EDWARD
Welcome, my lord: what, will our mother come?
HASTINGS
On what occasion, God he knows, not I,
The queen your mother, and your brother York,
Have taken sanctuary: the tender prince
Would fain have come with me to meet your grace,
But by his mother was perforce withheld.
BUCKINGHAM
Fie, what an indirect and peevish course
Is this of hers! Lord cardinal, will your grace
Persuade the queen to send the Duke of York
Unto his princely brother presently?
If she deny, Lord Hastings, go with him,
And from her jealous arms pluck him perforce.
CARDINAL
My Lord of Buckingham, if my weak oratory
Can from his mother win the Duke of York,
Anon expect him here; but if she be obdurate
To mild entreaties, God in heaven forbid
We should infringe the holy privilege
Of blessed sanctuary! not for all this land
Would I be guilty of so deep a sin.
BUCKINGHAM
You are too senseless--obstinate, my lord,
Too ceremonious and traditional
Weigh it but with the grossness of this age,
You break not sanctuary in seizing him.
The benefit thereof is always granted
To those whose dealings have deserved the place,
And those who have the wit to claim the place:
This prince hath neither claim'd it nor deserved it;
And therefore, in mine opinion, cannot have it:
Then, taking him from thence that is not there,
You break no privilege nor charter there.
Oft have I heard of sanctuary men;
But sanctuary children ne'er till now.
CARDINAL
My lord, you shall o'er-rule my mind for once.
Come on, Lord Hastings, will you go with me?
HASTINGS
I go, my lord.
PRINCE EDWARD
Good lords, make all the speedy haste you may.
Exeunt CARDINAL and HASTINGS
Say, uncle Gloucester, if our brother come,
Where shall we sojourn till our coronation?
GLOUCESTER
Where it seems best unto your royal self.
If I may counsel you, some day or two
Your highness shall repose you at the Tower:
Then where you please, and shall be thought most fit
For your best health and recreation.
PRINCE EDWARD
I do not like the Tower, of any place.
Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?
BUCKINGHAM
He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;
Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.
PRINCE EDWARD
Is it upon record, or else reported
Successively from age to age, he built it?
BUCKINGHAM
Upon record, my gracious lord.
PRINCE EDWARD
But say, my lord, it were not register'd,
Methinks the truth should live from age to age,
As 'twere retail'd to all posterity,
Even to the general all-ending day.
GLOUCESTER
[Aside] So wise so young, they say, do never
live long.
PRINCE EDWARD
What say you, uncle?
GLOUCESTER
I say, without characters, fame lives long.
Aside
Thus, like the formal vice, Iniquity,
I moralize two meanings in one word.
PRINCE EDWARD
That Julius Caesar was a famous man;
With what his valour did enrich his wit,
His wit set down to make his valour live
Death makes no conquest of this conqueror;
For now he lives in fame, though not in life.
I'll tell you what, my cousin Buckingham,--
BUCKINGHAM
What, my gracious lord?
PRINCE EDWARD
An if I live until I be a man,
I'll win our ancient right in France again,
Or die a soldier, as I lived a king.
GLOUCESTER
[Aside] Short summers lightly have a forward spring.
Enter young YORK, HASTINGS, and the CARDINAL
BUCKINGHAM
Now, in good time, here comes the Duke of York.
PRINCE EDWARD
Richard of York! how fares our loving brother?
YORK
Well, my dread lord; so must I call you now.
PRINCE EDWARD
Ay, brother, to our grief, as it is yours:
Too late he died that might have kept that title,
Which by his death hath lost much majesty.
GLOUCESTER
How fares our cousin, noble Lord of York?
YORK
I thank you, gentle uncle. O, my lord,
You said that idle weeds are fast in growth
The prince my brother hath outgrown me far.
GLOUCESTER
He hath, my lord.
YORK
And therefore is he idle?
GLOUCESTER
O, my fair cousin, I must not say so.
YORK
Then is he more beholding to you than I.
GLOUCESTER
He may command me as my sovereign;
But you have power in me as in a kinsman.
YORK
I pray you, uncle, give me this dagger.
GLOUCESTER
My dagger, little cousin? with all my heart.
PRINCE EDWARD
A beggar, brother?
YORK
Of my kind uncle, that I know will give;
And being but a toy, which is no grief to give.
GLOUCESTER
A greater gift than that I'll give my cousin.
YORK
A greater gift! O, that's the sword to it.
GLOUCESTER
A gentle cousin, were it light enough.
YORK
O, then, I see, you will part but with light gifts;
In weightier things you'll say a beggar nay.
GLOUCESTER
It is too heavy for your grace to wear.
YORK
I weigh it lightly, were it heavier.
GLOUCESTER
What, would you have my weapon, little lord?
YORK
I would, that I might thank you as you call me.
GLOUCESTER
How?
YORK
Little.
PRINCE EDWARD
My Lord of York will still be cross in talk:
Uncle, your grace knows how to bear with him.
YORK
You mean, to bear me, not to bear with me:
Uncle, my brother mocks both you and me;
Because that I am little, like an ape,
He thinks that you should bear me on your shoulders.
BUCKINGHAM
With what a sharp-provided wit he reasons!
To mitigate the scorn he gives his uncle,
He prettily and aptly taunts himself:
So cunning and so young is wonderful.
GLOUCESTER
My lord, will't please you pass along?
Myself and my good cousin Buckingham
Will to your mother, to entreat of her
To meet you at the Tower and welcome you.
YORK
What, will you go unto the Tower, my lord?
PRINCE EDWARD
My lord protector needs will have it so.
YORK
I shall not sleep in quiet at the Tower.
GLOUCESTER
Why, what should you fear?
YORK
Marry, my uncle Clarence' angry ghost:
My grandam told me he was murdered there.
PRINCE EDWARD
I fear no uncles dead.
GLOUCESTER
Nor none that live, I hope.
PRINCE EDWARD
An if they live, I hope I need not fear.
But come, my lord; and with a heavy heart,
Thinking on them, go I unto the Tower.
A Sennet. Exeunt all but GLOUCESTER, BUCKINGHAM and CATESBY
BUCKINGHAM
Think you, my lord, this little prating York
Was not incensed by his subtle mother
To taunt and scorn you thus opprobriously?
GLOUCESTER
No doubt, no doubt; O, 'tis a parlous boy;
Bold, quick, ingenious, forward, capable
He is all the mother's, from the top to toe.
BUCKINGHAM
Well, let them rest. Come hither, Catesby.
Thou art sworn as deeply to effect what we intend
As closely to conceal what we impart:
Thou know'st our reasons urged upon the way;
What think'st thou? is it not an easy matter
To make William Lord Hastings of our mind,
For the instalment of this noble duke
In the seat royal of this famous isle?
CATESBY
He for his father's sake so loves the prince,
That he will not be won to aught against him.
BUCKINGHAM
What think'st thou, then, of Stanley? what will he?
CATESBY
He will do all in all as Hastings doth.
BUCKINGHAM
Well, then, no more but this: go, gentle Catesby,
And, as it were far off sound thou Lord Hastings,
How doth he stand affected to our purpose;
And summon him to-morrow to the Tower,
To sit about the coronation.
If thou dost find him tractable to us,
Encourage him, and show him all our reasons:
If he be leaden, icy-cold, unwilling,
Be thou so too; and so break off your talk,
And give us notice of his inclination:
For we to-morrow hold divided councils,
Wherein thyself shalt highly be employ'd.
GLOUCESTER
Commend me to Lord William: tell him, Catesby,
His ancient knot of dangerous adversaries
To-morrow are let blood at Pomfret-castle;
And bid my friend, for joy of this good news,
Give mistress Shore one gentle kiss the more.
BUCKINGHAM
Good Catesby, go, effect this business soundly.
CATESBY
My good lords both, with all the heed I may.
GLOUCESTER
Shall we hear from you, Catesby, ere we sleep?
CATESBY
You shall, my lord.
GLOUCESTER
At Crosby Place, there shall you find us both.
Exit CATESBY
BUCKINGHAM
Now, my lord, what shall we do, if we perceive
Lord Hastings will not yield to our complots?
GLOUCESTER
Chop off his head, man; somewhat we will do:
And, look, when I am king, claim thou of me
The earldom of Hereford, and the moveables
Whereof the king my brother stood possess'd.
BUCKINGHAM
I'll claim that promise at your grace's hands.
GLOUCESTER
And look to have it yielded with all willingness.
Come, let us sup betimes, that afterwards
We may digest our complots in some form.
Exeunt







17

Brutus, having thus at last set eyes upon his kingdom, formed a design of building a city, and, with this view, traveled through the land to find out a convenient situation, and coming to the river Thames, he walked along the shore, and at last pitched upon a place very fit for his purpose. Here, therefore, he built a city, which he called New Troy; under which name it continued a long time after, till at last, by the corruption of the original word, at came to be called Trinovantum. But afterwards when Lud, the brother of Cassibellaun, who made war against Julius Caesar, obtained the government of the kingdom, he surrounded it with stately walls, and towers of admirable workmanship, and ordered it to be called after his name, Kaer-Lud, that is, the City of Lud. But this very thing became afterward the occasion of a great quarrel between him and his brother Nennius, who took offence at his abolishing the name of Troy in this country. Of this quarrel Gildas the historian has given a full account; for which reason I pass it over, for fear of debasing by my account of it, what so great a writer has so eloquently related.

18

After Brutus had finished the building of the city, he made choice of the citizens that were to inhabit it, and prescribed them laws for their peaceable government. At this time Eli the priest governed in Judea, and the ark of the covenant was taken by the Philistines. At the same time, also, the sons of Hector, after the expulsion of the posterity of Antenor, reigned in Troy; as in Italy did Sylvius Aeneas, the son of Aeneas, the uncle of Brutus, and the third king of the Latins.

Friday 12 May 2017

Tom O’ Bedlam



Tom o’ Bedlam

From the hag and hungry goblin
That into rags would rend ye,
The spirit that stands by the naked man
In the Book of Moons defend ye,
That of your five sound senses
You never be forsaken,
Nor wander from your selves with Tom
Abroad to beg your bacon,
While I do sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

Of thirty bare years have I
Twice twenty been enragèd,
And of forty been three times fifteen
In durance soundly cagèd
On the lordly lofts of Bedlam,
With stubble soft and dainty,
Brave bracelets strong, sweet whips ding-dong,
With wholesome hunger plenty,
And now I sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

With a thought I took for Maudlin
And a cruse of cockle pottage,
With a thing thus tall, sky bless you all,
I befell into this dotage.
I slept not since the Conquest,
Till then I never wakèd,
Till the roguish boy of love where I lay
Me found and stript me nakèd.
And now I sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

When I short have shorn my sow’s face
And swigged my horny barrel,
In an oaken inn I pound my skin
As a suit of gilt apparel;
The moon’s my constant mistress,
And the lowly owl my marrow;
The flaming drake and the night crow make
Me music to my sorrow.
While I do sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

The palsy plagues my pulses
When I prig your pigs or pullen,
Your culvers take, or matchless make
Your Chanticleer or Sullen.
When I want provant with Humphrey
I sup, and when benighted,
I repose in Paul’s with waking souls
Yet never am affrighted.
But I do sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

I know more than Apollo,
For oft, when he lies sleeping
I see the stars at bloody wars
In the wounded welkin weeping;
The moon embrace her shepherd,
And the Queen of Love her warrior,
While the first doth horn the star of morn,
And the next the heavenly Farrier.
While I do sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

The gypsies, Snap and Pedro,
Are none of Tom’s comradoes,
The punk I scorn and the cutpurse sworn,
And the roaring boy’s bravadoes.
The meek, the white, the gentle
Me handle, touch, and spare not;
But those that cross Tom Rynosseros
Do what the panther dare not.
Although I sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

With a host of furious fancies
Whereof I am commander,
With a burning spear and a horse of air,
To the wilderness I wander.
By a knight of ghosts and shadows
I summoned am to tourney
Ten leagues beyond the wide world’s end::
Methinks it is no journey.
Yet will I sing, Any food, any feeding,
Feeding, drink, or clothing;
Come dame or maid, be not afraid,
Poor Tom will injure nothing.

Wednesday 10 May 2017

Accession : The Fall of the House of Plantagenet





It is only by chance that Titulus Regius has survived

Titulus Regius: The Title of the King
by Tracy Bryce

Titulus Regius is a rare document in the history of the monarchy of England.  In a country where rights of succession were usually determined by inheritance and bloodlines, or more dramatically through rights of conquest, the Titulus is a legal document, written in English, which cogently argues for presenting the throne of England to the most eminently qualified candidate available – Richard Plantagenet.  My purpose today is to take a tour of TitulusRegius, reading and interpreting the text, as well as to discuss the background and history of this pivotal document of Richard’s short reign.

Origin

This Act of Settlement transcribed into the Rolls of Richard’s only Parliament is allegedly based upon the text of the petition made by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, to an assembly of the Lords and Commons in the London Guildhall on Wednesday, June 25th1483.  The petition was presented to the Duke of Gloucester at Baynard’s Castle on the next day, after which he acknowledged his acceptance, and King Richard’s reign began. 

Parliament had been called for November 6th, but, being delayed by Buckingham’s rebellion in October, it did not convene until January 23rd 1484.  Titulus Regiuswas the first act on the agenda, to verify the credentials of the reigning monarch and the prerogative of the Parliament that elected him.  We start with a kind of prologue, which establishes the association between the petition in June and this Act of Settlement now read into the Parliamentary record.  It is also carefully argued that, while those who presented the original petition – the roll of Parchment - were not a lawfully formed Parliament, this present body is a lawfully formed Parliament, and accordingly confirms all that was said the previous June.

The Preamble starts…

Where late heretofore, that is to say, before the Consecration, Coronation and Enthronization of our Sovereign Lord the King Richard the Third, a Roll of Parchment, containing in writing certain Articles of the tenor underwritten, on the behalf and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England, that is to wit, of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons, by many and diverse Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and other Nobles and notable persons of the Commons in great multitude, was presented and actually delivered unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, to the intent and effect expressed at large in the same Roll; to the which Roll, and to the Considerations and instant Petition comprised in the same, our said Sovereign Lord, for the public weal and tranquility of this Land, benignly assented.
Now forasmuch as neither the said three Estates, neither the said persons, which in their name presented and delivered, as is abovesaid, the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, were assembled in form of Parliament; by occasion whereof, diverse doubts, questions and ambiguities, been moved and engendered in the minds of diverse persons, as it is said: Therefore, to the perpetual memory of the truth, and declaration of the same, be it ordained, provided and established in this present Parliament, that the tenor of the said Roll, with all the continue of the same, presented, as is abovesaid, and delivered to our before said Sovereign Lord the King, in the name and on the behalf of the said three Estates out of Parliament, now by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament, and by authority of the same, be  ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorized, into removing the occasion of doubts and ambiguities, and to all other lawful effect that shall more thereof ensue; so that all things said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in the said Roll, and in the tenor of the same underwritten, in the name of the said three Estates, to the effect expressed in the same Roll, be of like effect, virtue and force, as if all the same things had been so said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in a full Parliament, and by authority of the same accepted and approved. The tenor of the said Roll of Parchment, whereof above is made mention, follows and is such. 

Suppression

It is only by chance that TitulusRegius has survived.   One of the first acts of Henry VII’s Parliament in November 1485  was to repeal Richard’s Act of Settlement unread; orders were passed down to have it deleted from the Statute book, and all copies were to be destroyed under pain of punishment.  As stated in the rolls of Henry’s first Parliament: 

“So that all things said and remembered in the said Bill and Act thereof may be for ever out of remembrance and also forgot.”[1]

The intent was to wipe out the stain of illegitimacy on Henry’s prospective wife, Elizabeth of York.  Her legitimacy as an heir of Edward IV served to strengthen Henry’s claim to the throne.

Sir Thomas More and Tudor historian Polydore Vergil, writing in the later years of Henry’s reign and beyond, consequently did not have access to the Titulus.  Its subsequent discovery sorely damaged the credibility of their own scholarly works.  In the 18thcentury, Horace Walpole in his Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III takes great delight in skewering More with the inaccuracies of the Eleanor Butler pre-contract story, whom More had misidentified as a royal mistress named Elizabeth Lucy.[2]  But if you believe, as Sir Clements Markham does, that “Thomas More” was really Cardinal John Morton in disguise, then the naming of the well-known mistress Elizabeth Lucy as the woman to whom Edward was betrothed, now appears to be a deliberate and nefarious scheme to discredit the veracity of Titulus Regius.  But that’s not a debate for this paper.

Discovery

We have to thank the anonymous Second Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle who summarized the contents of this “rolle of parchement”, which set forth Richard’s claim to the throne.  The Chronicle itself came to light early in the 17th century, and soon afterwards William Camden discovered the long-buried Act of Settlement amongst Private Acts filed away in the Tower, where it had escaped Henry’s purge. Cartographer John Speed printed more details from the Titulus in his book, History of Great Britain in 1611, and Sir George Buck used it as a source document for his better known work, The History of the life and reigne of Richard the Third, written circa 1619.  It was the beginning of Ricardian revisionism. 

Content

Charles Ross dismisses the Titulusas blatant propaganda, but political documents are invariably just that – an attempt to sway the minds and beliefs of the public on behalf of the party or body that generates it.  The goal of such documents is to justify governmental action or influence public opinion.   The language of Titulus is rather pedantic, a form of “legalese” with the constant repetition of key phrases to emphasize and to clarify the message delivered.  It sounds rather laborious to modern ears.  The Titulus is divided into three discernable themes:

Part I – The Previous Regime 

The first part of Titulus Regiusfollows a typical pattern of casting aspersions on the reigns of previous kings, as an explanation for why a change was needed.  Time and again in political documents one party accuses the other of various “murders, extortions and oppressions…with every good maiden and woman standing in dread to be ravished and defouled”.  We’ve seen it previously in the 1469 manifesto published by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and George of Clarence in justification for their coup against Edward.  Henry Tudor’s Act of Attainder against Richard follows the same practice, and decries: 

 “…the unnatural, mischievous and great perjuries, treasons, homicides and murders, in shedding of infants’ blood, with many other wrongs, odious offences and abominations against God and man.”[3]

Perhaps recognizing that these conventions were common in political writing, Richard apparently did not contest the unflattering things said about his brother’s statecraft.  Or perhaps he thought there was some truth in the matter.

To the High and Mighty Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Please it your Noble Grace to understand the consideration, election and petition of us the lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Realm of England, and thereunto agreeably to give your assent, to the common and public weal of this land, to the comforts and gladness of all the people of the same. 

 “First, we consider how that heretofore in time past, this Land many years stood in great prosperity, honour and tranquility; which was caused, foresomuch as the Kings then reigning, used and followed the advice and counsel of certain Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and other persons of approved sadness, prudence, policy and experience, dreading God, and having tender zeal and affection to indifferent ministration of Justice and to the common and political weal of the Land, then our Lord God was dread, loved and honoured; when within the Land was peace and tranquility, and among neighbours concord and charity; then the malice of outward enemies was mightily resisted and repressed, and the Land honourably defended with many great and glorious victories, then the intercourse of merchandises was largely used and exercised; by which things above remembered, the Land was greatly enriched, so that as well the merchants and artificers, as other poor people, labouring for their living in diverse occupations, had competent gain, to the sustentation of them and their households, living without miserable and intolerable poverty. 

”But afterward, when that such as had the rule and governance of this Land, delighting in adulation and flattery, and led by sensuality and concupiscence, followed the counsel of persons insolent, vicious, and of inordinate avarice, despising the counsel of good, virtuous and prudent persons such as above be remembered; the prosperity of this Land daily decreased, so that felicity was turned into misery, and prosperity into adversity, and the order of policy and of the law of God and Man confounded; whereby it is likely this Realm to fall into extreme misery and desolation, which God defend, without due provision of convenable remedy be had in this behalf in all goodly haste.
Over this, amongst other things, more specially we consider how that, the time of the Reign of King Edward IV, late deceased, after the ungracious pretensed marriage, as all England had cause so to say, made between the said King Edward IV and Elizabeth, sometime wife to Sir John Grey, Knight, late naming herself and many years heretofore Queen of England, the order of all politic rule was perverted, the laws of God and of God’s Church, and also the laws of nature, and of England, and also the laudable customs and liberties of the same, wherein every Englishman is inheritor; broken, subverted and contempted, against all reason and justice, so that this Land was ruled by self-will and pleasure, fear and dread, all manner of equity and laws laid apart and despised, whereof ensued many inconveniences and mischiefs, as murders, extortions and oppressions, namely of poor and impotent people, so that no man was sure of his life, land nor livelihood, nor of his wife, daughter nor servant, every good maiden and woman standing in dread to be ravished and defouled.  And besides this, what discords, inward battles, effusion of Christian men’s blood and namely, by the destruction of the noble blood of this Land, was had and committed within the same, it is evident and notary (notorious) through all this Realm unto the great sorrow and heaviness of all true Englishmen.

Part II – The Disqualification of Edward’s Heirs

The second section of the Titulusrelates how the marriage of Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville was deemed to be invalid for a litany of reasons:  it was contracted without the assent of the Lords, it was conducted secretly, in a “profane place” without the proclamation of banns and in defiance of Church laws, and in fact, was brought about through the sorcery of Elizabeth and her mother, Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford.  As if this wasn’t enough, there was this little matter of a pre-contract with Dame Eleanor Butler, the daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury.

All this was served as evidence that the children of Edward and Elizabeth, being bastards, were ineligible to claim the throne by inheritance.  The children of George, Duke of Clarence, were legally disqualified by their father’s attainder for treason.   In concordance with the ancient laws and customs of the land, there was only one way forward.  
The text reads:

“And here also we consider, how the said pretensed marriage, between the above named King Edward and Elizabeth Grey, was made of great presumption, without the knowing or assent of the Lords of this Land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft, committed by the said Elizabeth and her mother, Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion of the people and the public voice, and fame is through all this Land; and hereafter, if and as the case shall require, shall be proved sufficiently in time and place convenient.  

This sentence is significant, because it suggests that the matter of the late king’s invalid marriage was to be more thoroughly demonstrated, admitting that here and now was not the place to do it.  It does not preclude some future ecclesiastical examination into the pre-contract, and hints that there is more to this issue than is prudent to discuss here.

And here also we consider how that the said pretensed marriage was made privately and secretly, with edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church, after the laws of God’s church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England.  And how also, that at the time of the contract of the same pretensed marriage, and before and long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the said King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, long time before he made the said pretensed marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in manner and form aforesaid.  Which premises being true, as in very truth they been true, it appears and follows evidently, that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, against the law of God and his Church; and therefore no marvel  that the sovereign Lord and head of this Land, being of such ungodly disposition, and provoking the ire and indignation of our Lord God, such heinous mischiefs and inconveniences, as is above remembered, were used and committed in the Realm amongst the subjects.  Also it appears evidently and follows that all the issue and children of the said King, been (being) bastards, and unable to inherit or to claim anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.

“Moreover we consider how that afterward, by the three estates of this Realm assembled in a Parliament held at Westminster the 17th year of the reign of the said King Edward the Fourth, he then being in possession of the crown and royal estate, by an act made in the same Parliament, George, Duke of Clarence, brother to the said King Edward now deceased, was convicted and attainted of high treason, as in the same act is contained more at large.  Because and by treason whereof all the issue of the said George was and is disabled and barred of all right and claim that in any wise they might have or challenge by inheritance to the crown and royal dignity of this Realm, by the ancient law and custom of this same Realm.

Part III – The Birthright

Once the credentials of all other contenders for the throne were refuted, there remained only to establish the rightfulness of the claim of Richard Plantagenet.  This section of the Titulus outlines Richard’s worthiness to rule by inheritance through his father, Richard, Duke of York, by his birthright as an Englishman, and by his past services in defence of the Realm on the field of battle.  

“Over this we consider, how that you be the undoubted son and heir of Richard late Duke of York, very inheritor to the said crown and dignity royal and as in right King of England, by way to inheritance, and that at this time the premises duly considered, there is none other person living but you only, that by right may claim the said crown and dignity royal, by way of inheritance, and how that you be born within this Land; by reason whereof, as we deem in our minds, you be more naturally inclined to the prosperity and common weal of the same: and all the three Estates of the Land have, and may have, more certain knowledge of your birth and affiliation above said."[4]  We consider also, the great wit, prudence, justice, princely courage, and the memorable and laudable acts in diverse battles, which as we by experience know you heretofore have done for the salvation and defence of this same Realm; and also the great nobility and excellence of your birth and blood, as of him that is descended of the three most royal houses in Christendom, that is to say, England, France and Spain.”

The text goes on to confirm the authority of Parliament to endorse Richard’s claim and election to the crown and dignity of the Realm of England.  This is significant in English political history, as it is one of the first glimpses of Parliament, acting as a tool of the three estates, asserting power to influence the estate of kingship.  There is, in fact, a contract established here, between king and people.

Wherefore these premises by us diligently considered, we desiring affectuously the peace, tranquility and weal public of this Land, and the reduction of the same to the ancient honourable estate, and prosperity, and having in your great prudence, justice, princely courage and excellent virtue, singular confidence, have chosen in all that is in us is, and by this our writing choose you, high and mighty Prince, into our King and sovereign Lord, etc., to whom we know for certain it appertains of inheritance so to be chosen.  And hereupon we humbly desire, pray and require your said Noble Grace, that, according to this election of us the three Estates of this Land, as by your true inheritance, as by lawful election; and in case you so do, we promise to serve and to assist your Highness, as true and faithful subjects and liegemen, and to live and die with you in this matter, and every other just quarrel.  For certainly we be determined rather to adventure and commit us to peril of our lives and jeopardy of death, than to live in such thraldom and bondage as we have lived long time heretofore, oppressed and injured by new extortions and impositions, against the laws of God and man, and the liberty, old policy and laws of this Realm wherein every Englishman is inherited.  Our Lord God King of all Kings by whose infinite goodness and eternal providence all things have been principally governed in this world lighten your soul, and grant you grace to do, as well in this matter as in all other, all that may be according to his will and pleasure, and to the common and public weal of this Land, so that after great clouds, troubles, storms and tempests, the son (sun) of justice and of grace may shine upon us, to the comfort and gladness of all true Englishmen.”

Richard’s right to rule is grounded on the laws of God, of Nature and ancient social decrees.  Now, for those common people who do not understand these things, the Titulus asserts that Parliament knows what’s best, and seeks to “quiet men’s minds”…
  
“Albeit that the right, title and estate, which our sovereign Lord the King Richard the Third has to and in the crown and royal dignity of this Realm of England, with all things thereunto within this same Realm and without it, united, annexed and appertaining, have been just and lawful, as grounded upon the laws of God and of Nature, and also upon the ancient laws and laudable customs of this said Realm, and so taken and reputed by all such persons as been learnÄ“d in the above said laws and customs.  Yet, nevertheless, for as much as it is considered that the most part of the people of this Land is not sufficiently learnÄ“d in the abovesaid laws and customs, whereby the truth and right in this behalf of likelihood may be hid, and not clearly known to all the people, and thereupon put in doubt and question.  And over this, how that the Court of Parliament is of such authority, and the people of the Land of such nature and disposition, as experience teaches, that manifestation and declaration of any truth or right, made by the three Estates of this Realm assembled in Parliament, and by authority of the same, makes, before all other things, most faith and certainty, and, quietening men’s minds, removes the occasion of all doubts and seditious language.
“Therefore at the request, and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm, that is to say, the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal and Commons of this Land, assembled in this present Parliament by authority of the same, be it pronounced, decreed and declared, that our said sovereign Lord the King was and is very and undoubted King of this Realm of England; with all things thereunto within this same Realm, and without it united, annexed and appertaining, as well by right of consanguinity and inheritance as by lawful election, consecration and coronation.  And over this, that, at the request, and by the assent and authority abovesaid be it ordained, enacted and established that the said crown and royal dignity of this Realm, and the inheritance of the same, and other things thereunto within the same Realm, or without it, united, annexed, and now appertaining, rest and abide in the person of our said sovereign Lord the King, during his life, and, after his decease, in his heirs of his body begotten.”

This part concludes with the acknowledgement of Edward of Middleham as Richard’s lawful son and heir, and his successor to the throne, in accordance with the laws of inheritance.

“And specially, at the request, and by the assent and authority abovesaid, be it ordained, enacted, established, pronounced, decreed and declared that the high and excellent Prince Edward, son of our said sovereign Lord the King, be heir apparent of the same our sovereign Lord the King, to succeed to him in the above said crown and royal dignity, with all things as is aforesaid thereunto united, annexed and appertaining; to have them after the decease of our said sovereign Lord the King to him and to his heirs of his body lawfully begotten.”

To this bill the Commons gave their assent and it consequently passed.


Professor Charles Wood was to write in 1975:  “Ironic though it may be, Richard III, legendary usurper and tyrant, has some claim to having been the one possessor of a genuinely parliamentary title during the entire middle ages.”[5]

Titulus Regius is invaluable to us today as evidence of Richard’s right to rule.  It is a document which, if Henry had been successful, would have been lost to all history, leaving us even farther away from the truth that we Ricardians struggle to reach.




Bibliography

Cunningham, Sean. Richard III: A Royal Enigma.  The National Archives, Richmond, 2003.

Dunham, William Huse Jr, and Wood, Charles T. The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom’s Authority 1327-1485The American Historical Review, October 1976.

Gairdner, James.  History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third.  Cedric Chivers Ltd., Bath 1972.

Kendall, Paul Murray (ed.).  The Great Debate:  More’s History of King Richard III and Walpole’s Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1992.

Lamb, V. B.  The Betrayal of Richard III. Sutton Publishing, Stroud, Gloucestershire, 1997.

Potter, Jeremy. Good King Richard?  Constable, London, 1985.

Ross, Charles. Richard III. Eyre Methuen, London, 1981.

Shepherd, Kenneth R.  The Title of the King:  Aspects of Richard III’sAct of Succession.  The Ricardian.Vol. VII, No. 94, September 1986. 

The Croyland Chronicle. Part VII and Part VIII.  The Richard III Society, http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html.